This second appeal against concurrent judgments in a property suit was dismissed. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the courts below correctly relied on the grant certificate and Tahsildar order to dismiss the appellants' claim of title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 405 OF 2016 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.HALESHAPPA SON OF NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELANAYAKANAKATTE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-5772123
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.P M SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
NC: 2023:KHC:44986 RSA No. 405 of 2016
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC.,AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.9.2015 PASSED IN RA NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JMFC CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.13 PASSED IN OS NO. 299/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE JMFC CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR AMDISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful defendant who has questioned the concurrent judgments rendered by both the Courts wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of declaration and consequential relief of possession is decreed by both the Courts.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration
and possession against the defendants. The plaintiff is asserting title by contending that the suit schedule property is granted to the father of plaintiff No.1 and his father being the grantee was put in possession by the authorities. Plaintiff claimed that they are economically weak and except the suit schedule property they do not
have any other property. Plaintiff claimed that defendant without any semblance of right has tresspassed into the suit schedule property and has dispossessed the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.
granted to his father. Referring to these significant details, the trial court held that plaintiff has succeeded in proving his title. While answering issue No.2 in the affirmative, the trial Court has held that plaintiffs’ have succeeded in substantiating that defendant has illegally tresspassed into the suit property and dispossessed the plaintiffs. While answering Issue No.3 in the affirmative, the trial Court held that plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery of possession.
in possession of the suit property. Referring to all these significant details, the appellate Court concurred with the conclusions and reasonings recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
perused the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
clearly indicates that defendant has dispossessed the plaintiffs without any semblance of right. The concurrent findings on title and the high handed action on the part of the defendant in tresspassing and dispossessing plaintiffs is based on legal evidence let in by the plaintiffs. No
substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arises regarding the title to the suit property which was granted to the plaintiffs' father.
Whether the evidence of the Plaintiffs regarding dispossession by the Defendants is legally sustainable.
Haleshappa Son of Nagendrappa
Mallappa Son of Thippagappa
Onkarappa Son of Hanumantappa
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
